Lots of factors in marriage wins

NEWS

analysis by Lisa Keen

Was the sweep of marriage equality in four state ballot
measure last week the payoff for years of grassroots work, talking to
neighbors, and preparing against scare tactics, or was it the luck of having a
weakened opponent on more liberal ground with a strengthened Democratic
turnout?

There are as many answers to this question as there are ways
of asking it: Why, after eight years and 32 straight losses (save for a victory
in Arizona that was reversed two years later), did marriage equality supporters
this month win four of four battles at the ballot box?

In various mainstream media recaps, the response is that the
general population is growing more accepting of same-sex marriage. A New
York Times article Sunday said, "A
rapid shift in public opinion is bolstering [the same-sex marriage equality]
cause as more people grow used to the idea of same-sex marriage and become
acquainted with openly gay people and couples."

The Minnesota Post
gave credit to the fact that 79 percent of young voters in Minnesota voted
against the proposed ban of same-sex marriage, a much higher percentage than
voters overall in the state (54 percent). It also noted that any ballot that
did not include a "Yes" or "No" vote on Amendment 1 counted
as a "No" vote.

Articles in the Kennebec Journal
in Maine credited a "progressive"
electorate that cares about fairness and pro-marriage equality supporters
"who learned from their defeat" in a 2009 ballot fight "and made
a concerted effort to win votes outside the state's progressive urban and
suburban districts."

The Baltimore Sun
said the victory to pass Question 6 in Maryland could be "traced in
part" to the involvement of the faith community, in particular the fact
that two African American Southern Baptist ministers chose to "lend their
names, faces, and reputations to a campaign on an issue that remains highly
controversial in their community."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said the passage of Referendum 74 to allow same-sex marriage in Washington
State was "bolstered by getting two-thirds of the vote in populous King
County."

The National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded
the drives to defeat the three pro-marriage equality measures and to pass the
proposed ban in Minnesota, offered a litany of reasons for their unprecedented
losses. One NOM official, Thomas Peter, told PBS News Hour that many opponents of
same-sex marriage had grown "complacent" from all their previous
victories. But their key explanations, according to NOM leader Brian Brown, were
that the four states were "very liberal" Democratic states, and the
other side had much more money.

All of these explanations have some veracity – some
more than others. For instance, Patrick Egan, a public opinion specialist and
professor at New York University, said there's no doubt "we were fighting
on very friendly territory this year in three states" – Maine, Maryland,
and Washington. And there's no doubt that Democrats generally outperformed
Republicans in the state of Minnesota this year. (It certainly contrasts with
North Carolina, which approved a marriage ban in May, and has typically been a
Republican-leaning state.)

But these explanations still represent only the surface of a
very deep, multi-faceted foundation to the historic victories November 6.

Longtime gay Democratic activist David Mixner credited
youth, too, but sees it as a two-way street: more young LGBT people willing to
come out to their friends and family plus an "influx of straight energy
into the LGBT movement" from a younger generation who has more knowledge
and less fear about sexual orientation differences.

"By coming out, more people know LGBT people
individually and personally, and the more willing they are to support our
freedom and equality," said Mixner. "And young people challenged
their parents and said it's not fair. This influx of straight energy into the LGBT
movement is something we haven't seen the likes of since the civil rights
movement of 1960s."

Another longtime activist, Lorri Jean, chief executive
officer of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, said she would
"definitely" give President Barack Obama some credit. Obama, in May,
arranged for a nationally televised interview specifically to express his
personal evolution to a place where he supports the right of same-sex couples
to get married.

"He came out for freedom and, as he did, he explained
how he talked about it with his own children. It changed how African Americans
voted in some of these states," Jean said.

Unlike President Clinton, noted Jean, who "acknowledged
us" but then "invited the passage" of the Defense of Marriage
Act, "one of the single worst pieces of legislation ever enacted,"
Obama has been "a proponent of full and complete equality for our people
... and he got re-elected."

"I think that fact alone means that the right-wingers
can no longer bank on being able to use our lives, dignity, and rights as a
wedge issue," she added.

Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization,
agreed that Obama's remarks in support of same-sex marriage were critical.

Freedom to Marry said at the beginning of the year that paving
the way for the president to support marriage equality was "our top
priority," along with having marriage equality become part of the
Democratic Party platform. Both happened.

The top priority for the last half of the year, Wolfson
said, was "winning a ballot measure – and we succeeded in four of
four."

Wolfson, who has been working on the marriage equality issue
since its first serious eruption in Hawaii over a historic lawsuit there in
1993, said the four "profound triumphs" this year came down to
infrastructure, conversations, and time.

"We had better, smarter, and more focused
infrastructure and resources this year that had the ability to close the deal,"
said Wolfson. "We worked hard to lay the kind of groundwork that is necessary
for campaigns to win." That included early money that enabled campaigns to
make earlier media buys that were both cheaper and provided for a long,
sustained interaction with voters. The money also totaled much more than NOM
and marriage equality opponents could muster. Brown estimated his group spent
$5.5 million; Wolfson estimated the four pro-marriage equality campaigns spent
$32 million. The 2008 campaign against California's Proposition 8 raised $40
million, noted Wolfson, but more than half of that money came in the last few
weeks of the campaign.

Having that funding in place early, said Wolfson, "enabled
us to command the narrative and constantly make the case with voters without
being diverted" to fundraising activities. It also enabled the campaigns
to put messages in place to counter the scare tactics they knew would be coming
from the other side – such as Prop 8's message that allowing same-sex
marriage would require public schools to teach young children that boys can
marry boys.

In addition to television messages to counter those tactics,
said Wolfson, the four campaigns benefited from the "cumulative effect of
persuasion and conversations" with the public.

"I've been saying this for years: There is no marriage
without engagement," said Wolfson. "It's the number one most
important factor – to help people think things through and create the
climate" to win.

And part of that climate change has, he said, come over the
course of time with the public being able to "see with their own
eyes" same-sex couples getting married in six states and the District of
Columbia, as well as in 14 countries.

"It refutes the scare tactics, it resolves the
discomfort in favor of fairness. Families are helped and no one is hurt,"
said Wolfson. "All that is up from zero a decade ago, and it has allowed
people to rise to a higher level of understanding and support."